2006 (9) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal was justified in not accepted the claim of bad debt, especially when necessary evidence in respect of the fact that the debt became bad has already been produced? 2. Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not allowing the bad debt in view of the judgment of the hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided in the case of CIT v. Dunlop India Limited reported in [1994] 209 ITR 221, 227 the hon'ble court held that the entry of writing off is prima facie evidence of the debt having become bad but not a conclusive criterion and the onus rests on the assessee to establish that the debt has become bad in the relevant year? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt, especially when the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ooks of account for the year ending on March 31, 1999, and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have sustained the claim of the assessee on the merits because the assessee has established that the debt amount claimed by the assessee Rs. 2,89,750/- had actually become bad and recoverable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000 without insisting on fulfillment of a condition which was not possible to be complied with. 6. Perusal of the assessment order, and the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and of the Tribunal sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the aforesaid claim of the assessee shows that the contention of the assessee is not well founded. It is not in dispute that se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 36 does not commence. 8. The assessee's contention that the writing off any sum as bad and doubtful debt as if it has become irrecoverable is not an entry recalling transaction, but is a necessary adjustment to find out the true result of the business after completion of the year and making of profit and loss account. In the facts and circumstances, even in such event, the claim was liable to be negated since the books of account were seized on July 29, 1999, that is to say four months after the close of the previous year and until that time no such entries have been made in the books of accounts when the books were in the possession of the assessee. On this ground also the assessee's claim has not been found tenable, which....